Live data from Hacker News

FreeDOS's Linux Roots

linuxjournal.com

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#31

What can I do that is moderately interesting with freedos? I've downloaded it a couple of times, but I never found anything useful to do with it. I'm sure I could play some games, or something. I really want to actually learn it.

Run a DOS OS legally without having to use a Microsoft product. That's one.

It has a package repository which is cool.

But DOS is DOS, it is limited. If you don't think it's cool, I guess you're outside of its scope :).

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#32

What can I do that is moderately interesting with freedos? I've downloaded it a couple of times, but I never found anything useful to do with it. I'm sure I could play some games, or something. I really want to actually learn it.

Used it after restoring some win95 backup tape:

- old dos games

- turbo pascal 7 coding sessions

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a lot of firmware flashing stuff that runs on DOS, because it’s easier to have direct access to hardware without the OS trying to access that hardware simultaneously. The alternative is correctly disabling the device under Windows/Linux/whatever, flashing the firmware, and re-enabling it, which is a process likely to have bugs and potentially result in bricking the device. Modern operating systems are big and…

Even DOS doesn't work for most modern hardware. Can't have direct blueray drive access if there is no way to initialize the SATA controller...

[deleted]

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#34
post #2

You know, the fact that their tools were originally Linux explains why the tools are so bloated and slow compared to the MS-DOS utilities I still use like EDIT, TREE, and MORE. It also explains why FreeDOS won't install on PCs I have which install and run DR-DOS and MS-DOS just fine.

The tools weren't "originally Linux", some of the functionality was inspired by similar Linux tools. I thought that was explained pretty clearly, tbh.

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#35

What can I do that is moderately interesting with freedos? I've downloaded it a couple of times, but I never found anything useful to do with it. I'm sure I could play some games, or something. I really want to actually learn it.

One common use is to drive hardware directly, either to learn how it works (prior to e.g. writing a linux device driver) or just for performance reasons. Reading and writing bits to a parallel port takes about 1us or so; there's no latency involved (no USB polling for instance), and no hoops to jump through (e.g. iopl()/mmap ) to access the hardware.

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#36

What can I do that is moderately interesting with freedos? I've downloaded it a couple of times, but I never found anything useful to do with it. I'm sure I could play some games, or something. I really want to actually learn it.

Run a DOS OS legally without having to use a Microsoft product. That's one. It has a package repository which is cool. But DOS is DOS, it is limited. If you don't think it's cool, I guess you're outside of its scope :).

FWIW DR-DOS is also free, IIRC it was released as open source some years ago (i think OpenDOS is based on it) and it is a bit more compatible with MS-DOS than FreeDOS.

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#37

How does freedos handle newer hardware? I remember giving up on my super DOS boot disc about a decade+ ago when it wouldn't boot anymore. If memory serves it was around the end of IDE drives, but I could be wrong. Maybe it had to do with EFI.

Weird that your decade old computer wouldn't boot DOS, I've booted MS-DOS on my previous i7 4770K computer from an external floppy disk drive. I tried some CGA games i wrote and they kinda worked with the exception of BIOS not supporting text in CGA mode.

But to answer the question, FreeDOS like MS-DOS and DR-DOS has drivers in the form of TSRs and DEVICE=blah.sys files. The only drivers it needs itself is for disk and basic video output, which are provided by the BIOS.

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#38
Shouldn't it say GNU roots? I expected to read they borrowed code from Linux for their kernel and was curious what exactly the similarities would be between Linux and FreeDOS's kernel given that DOS doesn't even do multi-tasking, but the article only talks about them reimplementing GNU.

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#39

Curious. How exactly does one build embedded applications for FreeDOS? What languages/compiles can I use?

Check Open Watcom v2[1], which is still actively developed. Also the JWasm[2] - FOSS alternative to MASM.

[1] https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2

[2] https://GitHub.com/JWasm/JWasm

Re: FreeDOS's Linux Roots

#40

What can I do that is moderately interesting with freedos? I've downloaded it a couple of times, but I never found anything useful to do with it. I'm sure I could play some games, or something. I really want to actually learn it.

I remember using FreeDOS for learning assembly through the `debug` command. Looking at the BIOS data was fun for me at the time. I've also tried DOSBox but since it's emulated the BIOS data wasn't "real". I have not yet found an equivalent of the `debug` command for Linux. Ppl told me `gdb` could do the same but I found debug easier to use.

You can do more or less the same with e.g. objdump, but the root difference is that DOS COM binaries are very simple: basically a tiny header then the whole program in a big chunk.

More modern formats (be it PE, ELF, Mach-o, ...) are far more complex, with many different segments, running in a more complex CPU mode, generally dynamically linked, and all the other bell and whistles. So even if you had an identical debug.exe for Linux, it would still be much harder to make sense of.

Post reply on HN